Coug_Hawk08 wrote:I think Cole could have at the very least said 'per sources', or supply a link to a blog post that actually says something to back his tweet. Is cole a legit source?

So the difference between you accepting this tweet and not was the lack of 'per sources' in his 140 character limit?

Did I say that? Or did you read incorrectly? Sheesh you are being pretty dense. It's poor journalism to just make a brash statement without saying where it came from. Most legitamate reporters will at least say it was from sources, or per another report with link etc. Id expect you know this at least to some extent, as I have seen you complain about it in the past. Guess you are selective that way. The tweet has near zero credibility as is (jason coles name is on it, thats it. who cares?) Might as well be from bleacher report. Saying it is from a reliable source, is again, a start. Should fit in the character limit, too.

Even in the next tweet from the exchange with lurker "just relaying what people think", He gives zero detail or credibilty. I mean really? Are these people that matter? Are they even football people? Or did he just read some random community convo and then make a generic and largely baseless statement?

In a perfect world we keep both he and Wilson next year, or trade Flynn for a pick of some sort.. but if we cant and that $3M is the difference between a Richard Sherman staying in Seattle for 5 more years or him going to a Dallas or Washington.. ummm sorry Flynn, love ya buddy and wish you the best.

If we cut Flynn, it will not be about money or cap. It will be because we either found someone else who is a better fit for us, or because we reach the decision that Flynn is just not right for the Hawks.

Look at our roster and count how many guys we have in their first 4 years. Only those in their 4th year have contracts under the old CBA. Using Wilsons contract as an example, (3rd round Qb), his third year will pay him about 700K. If that is "average", and you have 40 guys on your team in their first 4 years, thats about 30M, leaving 90M to spread out on vets. 30 in the first 4 it goes down to 20M leaving 100M for vets. Welcome to life in the new NFL.

If we cut or traded Flynn, who would be the backup? We are only carrying two QB's on the roster. Would we draft another rookie to back up Wilson? Pick a veteran off the scrap heap, like Cassel, Quinn, etc? If we trade Flynn it would be for draft choices. If we trade Flynn it will be because the Hawks have their eye on a veteran coming available or another sleeper in the draft. I don't see him being cut.

In a perfect world we keep both he and Wilson next year, or trade Flynn for a pick of some sort.. but if we cant and that $3M is the difference between a Richard Sherman staying in Seattle for 5 more years or him going to a Dallas or Washington.. ummm sorry Flynn, love ya buddy and wish you the best.

As much as people want to point to the high numbers produced in Flynn's two starts, no one ever mentions that in his two starts he threw interceptions on probably 30% of his passes that traveled over 15 yards. He is a risk taker down field and doesn't have the arm to back that up.

The true question and one that no one but the coaching staff can answer is, is Josh Portis ready to be the number two guy and come in and get us wins if our starter gets injured (I am not willing to put his name and injured in the same sentence)? A lot of Seahawk fans got very excited about Portis after two drives in the preseason two seasons ago, but his last preseason was not impressive at all. The lack of reps probably killed him, but this offseason he should be putting in work as much as either one of the guys ahead of him on the depth chart with our receivers. All of them have already stated they will be working with Russell Wilson, and I wonder if they will extend the same for Portis.

Zowert wrote:And people actually thought Matt Flynn was worth as much as a first round pick, lol! I knew this all along, that Flynn doesn't have much (if any) value on the market. He is simply not a proven quarterback. If he had a full season under his belt, where he put up good or at least decent numbers, then we would be talking 3rd or even 2nd round picks.

We overvalued Matt Flynn, so this kind of news [if he does get cut] really shouldn't be so surprising. Just because we're paying him a starting QB's salary, doesn't make him a valuable asset to other teams around the league. Even to teams that need a QB. They'd rather draft one or pick a proven veteran up.

Tarvaris Jackson is actually worth more than Flynn.

QB's are not exactly a dime a dozen though, so I can see why a lot of people put more value on Flynn than he is actually worth. Kinda funny how things work out, sometimes...

Don't agree, people will always pay for QBs they think can "maybe be the guy".Last year was different in that the QB class was deep and full of quality, the top 2 picks were slam dunk starters, and then people were high on Tannehill, Weeden, Osweiler, Cousins, Foles and Wilson - maybe not first round high, but "possible starter guys", and pretty much everyone has been proven right bar a couple. This year there's talk that a QB won't go in the first round (I doubt that will happen), but that also means that the value of backup QBs increase.

seedhawk wrote:If we cut Flynn, it will not be about money or cap. It will be because we either found someone else who is a better fit for us, or because we reach the decision that Flynn is just not right for the Hawks.

Look at our roster and count how many guys we have in their first 4 years. Only those in their 4th year have contracts under the old CBA. Using Wilsons contract as an example, (3rd round Qb), his third year will pay him about 700K. If that is "average", and you have 40 guys on your team in their first 4 years, thats about 30M, leaving 90M to spread out on vets. 30 in the first 4 it goes down to 20M leaving 100M for vets. Welcome to life in the new NFL.

Actually, it could be about all three.

It will definitely be about money/cap, and we may find a journeyman or rookie that we feel fits the offense better and for less money.

The thing is, sure, if you look at our current cap situation and don't consider the future at all, we're in pretty good shape. But we've got a lot of amazing, key guys who are so much more important to the team than the backup QB, and we're going to need to start preparing to pay these guys as they come off their rookie deals.

Given that we can roll cap room over to following seasons, maximizing your cap room in order to keep your crucial players from leaving in FA by signing them to long-term deals prior to them hitting FA is hugely important. Far more important than whether we have Matt Flynn or (for example) Tarvaris Jackson at backup.

Yes, the Seahawks are very lucky that they don't have a ton of money tied up in the QB position, but it's primarily due to Wilson being the biggest bargain in the league at starting QB. But just because we don't HAVE to release Flynn doesn't mean we shouldn't try to maximize the value we're getting at all positions on the team. If we can get a guy that gives us the peace of mind at backup QB that Flynn does for closer to the vet minimum, then we should take it and let Flynn seek a starting gig elsewhere.

In the end, I wouldn't be surprised to see the team approach Flynn about reworking his contract to something more cap friendly in order to grease the wheels for a trade, or in the absence of that, to keep him around while giving the team more flexibility to sign guys like Thomas, Chancellor, Sherman, Browner, Okung, etc. to deals that will keep them far away from FA.

It is pretty crazy how much some people over-value Flynn around here. He is a 28 year old career backup. He has no outstanding physical skills. Few teams were interested in him as a free agent. Since then, he lost out to a rookie in a QB competition. I just don't get why people think he would be worth so much in a trade, or why a struggling team with a pissed off fanbase would even want to sell Matt Flynn as "the answer" to those pissed off fans.

I think the most you could hope for is that another team is willing to give him exactly the same kind of opportunity Seattle gave him last year: Bring him in, let him compete with a high upside rookie and see what happens. But the thing is, no team is going to give up a high pick for the opportunity to bring him in for a QB competition.

Despite all that stuff, I do really like him. I think he probably could be a pretty good player, maybe even a good starter. I think he is a fantastic backup. If he was content with it, I'd just assume keep him, unless we have to have that cap space to address other needs.

We are not CUTTING Flynn. The cost of doing so plus the cost of the backup has to much risk vs the reward. If you can save $10 million and get a great improvement fine but in this case we would save a few millions on the cap but get a huge downgrade.

Now trading Flynn is surely on the block. Get rid of the full contract and get someone in there cheap but with upside for the future but he will be good enough to come in and play.....

I don't see it. There is more value for him this year than last, and he had at least two teams - Seattle and Miami - interested then.

To say he won't amount to anything because he's been a "perpetual backup" is not really telling the whole story anyway. He backed up a perennial top-5 (and arguably the league's current best) quarterback in Green Bay, and even if Wilson was a 3rd round rookie, his play put him soundly in top-5 quarterback play this year. Flynn would have had to beat out two top-5 quarterbacks on two different teams to make the cut as a starting quarterback. What are the odds of that? But he doesn't have to do that if he's traded. All he has to do is be one of the best 32 quarterbacks in the league to be a starter. He obviously still has the potential for that.

The thing we're overlooking somewhat here is Flynn's contribution to this team. As I recall, both Carroll and Wilson said he was extremely instrumental in keeping our heads and hearts in the game when we came back against Atlanta. He played a vital role in pumping up spirits on the sidelines, and coaching everyone up to stay in it and come back for what would have been the win. So to dismiss him as so much fodder just because he's making more money than Wilson as Wilson's backup is a bit off. There is a set amount of money tied up in the quarterback position, and even next year, it's not anything to break the bank. He may be cut or (more likely) traded, but he could well remain on our roster next year. We've seen the need for a quality backup. Why open yet another position to be a position of need just to save a few bucks?

World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.

Coug_Hawk08 wrote:Did I say that? Or did you read incorrectly? Sheesh you are being pretty dense. It's poor journalism to just make a brash statement without saying where it came from. Most legitamate reporters will at least say it was from sources, or per another report with link etc. Id expect you know this at least to some extent, as I have seen you complain about it in the past. Guess you are selective that way. The tweet has near zero credibility as is (jason coles name is on it, thats it. who cares?) Might as well be from bleacher report. Saying it is from a reliable source, is again, a start. Should fit in the character limit, too.

Even in the next tweet from the exchange with lurker "just relaying what people think", He gives zero detail or credibilty. I mean really? Are these people that matter? Are they even football people? Or did he just read some random community convo and then make a generic and largely baseless statement?

I think the rules of the forum say attack the post, not the poster. You might want to keep that in mind next time.

It's a tweet.

He relayed some information. There was nothing 'brash' about it. You're arguing he didn't use the words 'per sources'. The world continues to turn whether he uses those words or not. It's completely irrelevant considering it's implied that he has indeed spoken to sources. Anybody can see that.

I am wondering why the Seahawks even gave Matt Flynn the amount of money they did. He only has two career regular season starts, and other teams in the league weren't exactly falling over trying to sign him. Actually I think we were the only ones really pursuing him. I did hear about the Miami Dolphins having a little interest in him, and maybe one or two others. But none of them were going to give him a long term deal and especially not the amount of money we dumped into his contract.

I bet if the talent available in the Quarterback position wasn't so deep in last year's draft. Then Flynn's stock on the free agent market would've been much higher. However, that wasn't the case and we ended up overpaying the guy. Now we're out what could have been the best backup QB in the league because his salary is not worth keeping him on the roster. We're either going to have to sign Portis off the practice squad [before he gets signed to attend another team's training camp] or look around for a decent backup. Its going to tough to find a second string QB that everyone (fans, players and coaches) can be confident in..

Lets just hope that Russell Wilson has a skeleton with the indestructible metal; adamantium, like the X-Men character "Wolverine".. Since "adamantium" is a fictional metal. Maybe the Seahawks team surgeons can put DangeRuss under the knife this off-season and replace his ordinary bone skeleton with Grade 4 Titanium alloy rods. Then reconstruct all of his ligaments (ACL, MCL, etc) with Type-49 Kevlar, or maybe some type of carbon nanofiber material. Graphene [200x stronger than steel] if you could somehow use it to make knee ligaments. Basically, I want RW to be indestructible.

pehawk wrote:It's okay to attack posters not in the country. At least, thats what Les said.

Hell yeah! Let's gang up on the foreigners!

You'd like that wouldn't you, Air Supply?

I'm tired of these LAZY, know-nuttin, freeloading foreigners clogging OUR boards and bandwidth to spread their Bearded Colt McCoy hate. Yeah, I know that statement will ruffle the feathers of Rockhawk who encourages such isht with his "screenname amnesty" program, but someone had to say it. I want my daughter to grow up on a board free of such hate and rhetoric. Not to mention my daughters right to the bandwidth and OP's they're greedily taking for themselves.

Coug_Hawk08 wrote:Did I say that? Or did you read incorrectly? Sheesh you are being pretty dense. It's poor journalism to just make a brash statement without saying where it came from. Most legitamate reporters will at least say it was from sources, or per another report with link etc. Id expect you know this at least to some extent, as I have seen you complain about it in the past. Guess you are selective that way. The tweet has near zero credibility as is (jason coles name is on it, thats it. who cares?) Might as well be from bleacher report. Saying it is from a reliable source, is again, a start. Should fit in the character limit, too.

Even in the next tweet from the exchange with lurker "just relaying what people think", He gives zero detail or credibilty. I mean really? Are these people that matter? Are they even football people? Or did he just read some random community convo and then make a generic and largely baseless statement?

I think the rules of the forum say attack the post, not the poster. You might want to keep that in mind next time.

It's a tweet.

He relayed some information. There was nothing 'brash' about it. You're arguing he didn't use the words 'per sources'. The world continues to turn whether he uses those words or not. It's completely irrelevant considering it's implied that he has indeed spoken to sources. Anybody can see that.

Where is the emote smiley shedding a little tear? Or playing a tiny violin? Come on man.

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's credible, or that it really means a dang thing. You are obviously an advocate of his thoughts and are pushing it on others, that's fine. I think the attempts to defend cole are as weak as the arguments provided for releasing Flynn. Good thing is, we get to see how it all plays out.

I wonder what incarceratedbob has to say about this topic? #beleiveeverythingontwitter

Last edited by Coug_Hawk08 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am at least as big a RW fan as PC, and have been since about 1/2 way through his first game for my alma mater. One of the many things that impress me about RW is how he does what he does and avoids the big hits. That said, in my just over 50 years as a player, coach (kid ball) and fan, I have seen that anyone can get hurt...and the more you put yourself out there, the more chance of that happening.

My point is that, while RW is clearly the guy, I believe that (especially after years in a GB system that has a pretty good history with QBs) Flynn is one of the top backups in the league and is better than many starters out there. It really wouldn't take a lightning strike...especially with the ever increasingly more stringent concussion protocols mandated by the NFL...for the Hawks to need someone who could step in for a half, or a game, or a few games and keep the team in competition while awaiting Russ' return. How many would like to see the Hawks forced to do what Washington did and either risk the future of their franchise QB by playing him hurt or make do with a some guy who has never played a game in the NFL? Who would one like to see backing up Russ this next year rather than Flynn?

To me, for a difference of about $2M-$3M to a team with a ton of cap space, Flynn seems a good enough insurance policy for at least one more year. I really cannot imaging him getting cut for no compensation.

Now, if there were a trade offer that would produce a big, fast WR with fantastic hands...that might be a different story

To be fair to Matt, let's remind ourselves of Russell's preseason numbers before being named starter: 35 of 52 (67.3 percent) for 464 yards, five touchdowns and a league-leading 119.4 QB rating.

Flynn didn't get beat out by a guy who played like a third round rookie in the preseason. He got beat out by a guy who played like the best QB in the NFL. I'm pretty sure fans of the Chiefs, Jags, Cards and Jets would see Flynn as at least a viable two-to-three year solution at QB, much the same way Seattle fans viewed him last year. Not saying he's worth a ton, but his name certainly has infinitely more cachet around the league than that of Tarvaris Jackson last year.

The Texans traded two second-round picks for Matt Schaub in 2007. The Seahawks gave up a third-round pick for Charlie Whitehurst in 2010.

The market for Flynn this year Might be better but Alex Smith is also available, that is another factor to account for. If we couldn't squirrel money away now with Flynn gone for future spending then I would keep him but the reason our cap is in the situation it is in is we are paying way below market value for our production of our secondary, left tackle, and LB unit, eventually we are going to need to lock up these players like Thomas and Sherman who are playing at All-Pro levels but earning way under market value for their contributions.

I would simply take our young drafted players over a FA backup QB when it comes down to it. I like Flynn but he lost the job, and after the Patriots game, no way he was getting it back. Cutting Flynn at least saves us money in the future, trading him would be best as that money goes completely off the books and I would take draft position, not even a pick, for Flynn. Maybe even a trade where we get a depth player like Jennings for McDonald or something like that. I think we are still in the talent acquisition business and any way to save for more younger talent the better. Only way he stays is if we shorten the contract/renegotiate, IMO.

HawkWow wrote:People call Flynn "a career back-up" like he went from team to team, never able to secure a starting slot no matter how badly those teams expected him to start. How many QBs in this league would beat out Rodgers? After Brady's most recent performance, I'd say the answer to that question is... zero.

Now, how many QBs in this league could beat out Wilson? I'm sure he's better today than he was when named the starter, but how much better? Obviously JS and PC saw something in Wilson....and they were obviously correct.

The majority of posters in here have proclaimed there is not one QB in the league they would trade RW for. I am probably in that camp as well.

So, what we know about Flynn is that he has excelled when called upon (vs. NE and Detroit) and got beat out in Seattle's camp by what many apparently believe to be the best QB in the world. I'm not saying Flynn's worthy of a 1st rounder, but I do believe an asterisk belongs next to the description of "career back-up". YMMV.

Exactly!... Imagine if the packers let Aaron Rogers move on because they decided to continue on with Farve and he wen't to a team that drafted an amazing rookie qb that could easily be a top 5 qb in the league, so he didn't get a chance to start there either. In that senerio Rogers would have been a "career-backup" as well. Does that mean he is not a good qb? Sometimes you just get put in the wrong situations in life.

pehawk wrote:It's okay to attack posters not in the country. At least, thats what Les said.

Hell yeah! Let's gang up on the foreigners!

You'd like that wouldn't you, Air Supply?

I'm tired of these LAZY, know-nuttin, freeloading foreigners clogging OUR boards and bandwidth to spread their Bearded Colt McCoy hate. Yeah, I know that statement will ruffle the feathers of Rockhawk who encourages such isht with his "screenname amnesty" program, but someone had to say it. I want my daughter to grow up on a board free of such hate and rhetoric. Not to mention my daughters right to the bandwidth and OP's they're greedily taking for themselves.

yeah i just can't see him getting cut. as far as i know the hawks already have 18 million or something like that in free cap space and I'm pretty sure Matt Flynn is only due guaranteed 2 million next year unless he starts so that's not a bad price to be paying for a solid back up

DavidSeven wrote:To be fair to Matt, let's remind ourselves of Russell's preseason numbers before being named starter: 35 of 52 (67.3 percent) for 464 yards, five touchdowns and a league-leading 119.4 QB rating.

Flynn didn't get beat out by a guy who played like a third round rookie in the preseason. He got beat out by a guy who played like the best QB in the NFL.

But that still doesn't say anything about Flynn. It just leaves us with no conclusion.

Fans may see Flynn as an option, but I doubt coaches would. He just doesn't have a very exciting profile. Kansas City and Jacksonville, maybe. Rex Ryan isn't going to go for another physically limited QB. The Cards are a division rival and won't be giving us much.

DavidSeven wrote:To be fair to Matt, let's remind ourselves of Russell's preseason numbers before being named starter: 35 of 52 (67.3 percent) for 464 yards, five touchdowns and a league-leading 119.4 QB rating.

Flynn didn't get beat out by a guy who played like a third round rookie in the preseason. He got beat out by a guy who played like the best QB in the NFL.

But that still doesn't say anything about Flynn. It just leaves us with no conclusion.

Fans may see Flynn as an option, but I doubt coaches would. He just doesn't have a very exciting profile. Kansas City and Jacksonville, maybe. Rex Ryan isn't going to go for another physically limited QB. The Cards are a division rival and won't be giving us much.

What are you talking about? I read on this very board that they're giving us Fitz AND a 3rd round pick!

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.

Schneider just said, last week, that they like Flynn and are okay with the money and have no reason to trade. Said they were open to trades, but were happy with him and thought he was the best out there in the backup role. He said the total money for both quarterbacks was well below league average and they thought they had a great situation.

So yeah, that report is absurd. About as dumb and just plain wrong as all the reports that we were trading Flynn for Sanchez.

I've learned to stop listening to traditional sports media about anything because they just make stuff up. Jason Cole is good sometimes but this rumor just makes him look dumb. I'm actually embarrassed for him.

sutz wrote:Oh, and show me where in the rule book or the CBA it says your backup must make less than a starter.

It doesn't, but when the back-up earns over ten (???) times more than your Pro-Bowl starter then it's time to consider that situation. We don't need to spend that much money on a guy who wears a cap and a big coat on game day.

He's not grossly overpaid for what he is...a starting caliber NFL QB. It's an unprecedented, special circumstance. In a perfect world Russ would be making $15M a year and then we'd have an issue with payroll at the QB position. As it is right now our total payroll at QB is extremely low for the talent and depth we have right now. Flynn has a significant value in this league and for the Hawks to throw that value away and getting nothing return would be ludicrous and something we shouldn't expect Schneider to do.

If we can't get a 4th rounder or a solid experienced player in return, you keep him.

I have a theory about Matt Flynn. I think Dallas will pick him up to compete with Tony Romo and he will win that job. I think there is pressure in Dallas and they are finally figuring out that Romo is an interception machine, I think Jerry Jones is going to do something about it and he may do something crazy that none of us would ever imagine. No, i did not read it anywhere, it is something I came to conclusion based on situations.

Coug_Hawk08 wrote:Where is the emote smiley shedding a little tear? Or playing a tiny violin? Come on man.

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's credible, or that it really means a dang thing. You are obviously an advocate of his thoughts and are pushing it on others, that's fine. I think the attempts to defend cole are as weak as the arguments provided for releasing Flynn. Good thing is, we get to see how it all plays out.

I wonder what incarceratedbob has to say about this topic? #beleiveeverythingontwitter

I have no problems with a verbal joust. If you want to go down that road, start a thread of a similar nature in the shack and we can say what we want to each other. I'm not going to risk getting banned by responding to a needless 'dense' remark. It was unnecessary and just risks turning the thread into a slanging match.

I am neither an advocate or a sceptic of Jason Cole. He put something on Twitter which appears to be sourced. I've started a thread about it so we can talk about something other than whether Russell Wilson should be appointed offensive coordinator when he retires or whether Gus Bradley having a 90 minute conversation with the Eagles cost us a playoff game. His information may be accurate or inaccurate. I think he's probably got a point here and he's not the first to make similar sentiments - Adam Schefter says he thinks the market will be cold too.

I'm willing to be wrong, I can see other arguments. But this isn't getting thrown around for nothing. It could happen. And just because Cole hasn't put 'per sources' in his tweet doesn't make a great deal of difference.

Cole's a journalist for an established brand and he has sources. He's not some guy who lives in his mother's basement who tweets absolute garbage 100% of the time (Incareceratedbob). He might be wrong on this one. But he could be right. I'm prepared for any scenario when it comes to Flynn's future. I suspect some people aren't, and they might be in for a surprise.

CrimsonWazzu wrote:He's not grossly overpaid for what he is...a starting caliber NFL QB.

The guy has two starts in his career. We have no idea if he's a starting calibre NFL QB.

HansGruber wrote:Yeah, so about a dozen teams are looking for a quarterback, and the only real options this offseason will be Barkley, Geno and Alex Smith.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:I think people need to be more prepared than they think for this happening.

There are obvious benefits to having extra cap room as discussed, plus he's due $5.25m this year and $6.25m the next. And any team that trades for Flynn will be stuck paying that salary to a 28-year-old with two career starts.

There's a very GOOD reason that some of us fans believe that Flynn has more value than you believe he has, and OUR beliefs are validated by the lucritive contract that Schneider has offered this kid.Not a single Quarterback on our roster could have beaten out Russell Wilson for the starting job, and just because he couldn't, doesn't mean that Matt Flynn isn't capable of out performing about 60% of the Quarterbacks around the League.I don't believe we are over valuing Matt Flynn, just countering some asertions that he's cannon fodder.

Aside from TJack, which of the above QBs could be a solid #2 on opening day in our offense without needing a lot of snaps during the offseason? Flynn's familiarity with our offense makes Russell Wilson better (more reps), and anything we can do to make Wilson better is worth spending a lot on at this point in his career.

pehawk wrote:I dont appreciate Scott equating his inside source ability to "dick". And, you cant be Cole, because, well, I am already. Oh, and Miami kept Moore, he was on their roster last year (reason 1,345 why Miami never wanted Flynn that English will deny).

English got taken for London Bridge (British jokes!!!!) here, but thats okay, we still love him.

One request, from now on can we refer to Matt Flynn as THE Bearded Coly McCoy?

My bad on Moore, I was mixing him and Henne up. Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

DavidSeven wrote:To be fair to Matt, let's remind ourselves of Russell's preseason numbers before being named starter: 35 of 52 (67.3 percent) for 464 yards, five touchdowns and a league-leading 119.4 QB rating.

Flynn didn't get beat out by a guy who played like a third round rookie in the preseason. He got beat out by a guy who played like the best QB in the NFL.

But that still doesn't say anything about Flynn. It just leaves us with no conclusion.

Fans may see Flynn as an option, but I doubt coaches would. He just doesn't have a very exciting profile. Kansas City and Jacksonville, maybe. Rex Ryan isn't going to go for another physically limited QB. The Cards are a division rival and won't be giving us much.

If you're saying "a Physically limited QB" to mean that he's not up to Russell Wilson's physically expansive abilities? then that would also tag about 95% of the QB's in the League

Another point. Right now the cap is flat, but it will go up in the future, and the teams" WILL" spend basically 90% of their free/cap money every year. Rollover in that instance just guarantees you wind up spending more.

Many here subscribe to the plan that we should find a backup more like Wilson. RW is unique! Even RG3 is not a clone. Close perhaps. Many bring up Portis. He could perhaps be 40% RW.

I respect English for his analysis and pointers, however, when it comes to Flynn, it seems to me Rob is wearing blinders.

Simply because RW fell to us, one way or another, and perhaps winding up a 3rd rould pick drives him more than any of us know, seems to me our team would have still made the playoffs with Flynn as our Qb. Would our games look different, certainly! This Qb debate between Flynn and Wilson is equal to the chicken or the egg first debate.

Am I crazy to think Flynn has more upside than Alex Smith? Obviously, Smith has proven he can thrive in a perfect situation, but what are his game-managing ways going to do for teams like Kansas City or Jacksonville? I feel like the mystery surrounding Flynn's true abilities should benefit him here.

DavidSeven wrote:Am I crazy to think Flynn has more upside than Alex Smith? Obviously, Smith has proven he can thrive in a perfect situation, but what are his game-manaing ways going to do for teams like Kansas City or Jacksonville?

What if the Falcons had managed to score and beat the 49ers at the end of the game last Sunday? They'd be going to the Super Bowl with a QB who is injured. Would he heal up in time? If not, would he heal up enough that he could play injured but still get the job done? Would they have to go with their backup, and who IS their backup?

If John and company feel they can afford to keep Matt, they will do so. If not, they'll try to shop him. Cutting him would be a last resort--not impossible, but definitely further down the list of possibilities.

In my book there are at least eight teams that will be (or should be) looking for an upgrade at QB.

They include the Chiefs, the Jags, the Raiders, the Eagles, the Browns, the Cardinals, the Bills and the Jets... and that is the draft order in the first round with the exception of the Lions who pick at #5.

I am of the opinion that at least two of those eight teams will have an interest in Flynn "at the right price".

I believe that the Hawks will trade Flynn on draft day to one of those eight teams... and it could go down as either swapping picks in the same round... likely no earlier than the third round.... or it could go down with a swap coupled with a draft pick if the swap is in a later round... like the 5th or 6th.

DavidSeven wrote:Am I crazy to think Flynn has more upside than Alex Smith? Obviously, Smith has proven he can thrive in a perfect situation, but what are his game-manaing ways going to do for teams like Kansas City or Jacksonville?

No, not crazy. Alex has always been a terrible red zone QB.

In the three games where Flynn played significant snaps prior to signing with Seattle, he was... not great. Then again, there's not a lot of evidence, really.

Against the Lions in 2010 when he took over for Rodgers mid-game, he had only one trip to the red zone:

2 plays, 2 attempts, 0 completions, 1 INT

Against the Patriots in 2010, when he was the starter, he had 5 trips into the red zone:

Against the Lions in 2011, when he was the starter, he had 3 trips into the end zone:

10 plays, 2 runs, 8 attempts, 5 completions, 2 TDs

---

While there is clear evidence that Flynn's play in the red zone improved with each opportunity to start, I wouldn't yet call red zone play a "strength." I'd still consider it an unknown. What is clear is that at least in the famous 480/6 game, Flynn benefited a lot from the big play. For a team to score 45 points offensively and yet only reach the red zone 3 times in a game is pretty incredible.

I don't have the time to track each of Smith's plays in the red zone right now. Maybe I'll investigate that this evening.

seedhawk wrote:Another point. Right now the cap is flat, but it will go up in the future, and the teams" WILL" spend basically 90% of their free/cap money every year. Rollover in that instance just guarantees you wind up spending more..

Except the cap won't really go up for awhile based on the new CBA. Technically you are right but I don't count an extra million as going up (in this case now if it was my salary I would )

"As a review, the 2012 official league-wide cap is $120 million. In 2013, that number is expected to grow only to $121 million, with 2014 at $122 million and a modest bump to $125 million in 2015"